Regarding the Anonymous page

I've looked into the Anon/WBC incident before for an essay on freedom of speech as it relates to Internet culture, and while both WBC and Anon showed their typical lack of civility and good manners towards each other they didn't violate the 1st Amendment in any way. I might have made a mistake in the report, though, so if you could show me where one side or the other violated 1st Amendment rights I'd be happy to concede the point. Blessings of the Almighty on you :) 16:25, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

Seeing as you've blocked me in the past for sometimes having a less-than-cheerful attitude...

Does that mean you're trying to be sarcastic? But you can't think of anything witty or amusing to type?

Brenden, why don't you just say sorry and leave it at that? (Have you looked at the history of User:Reactionary22, you will see that I gave this guy a chance to respond and chandged his block settings.)

Editing

Conservative

If you have a personal problem with a sysop, you take it up with Aschlafly. Karajou 11:12, 19 November 2012 (EST)

Personal Honeypot

Just registered. I think an interesting experiment/test could be to add a few articles copied from wikipedia into the wiki after deleting all the spam and see if the content of those articles changes what is being written in the spam. Dvergne 23:57, 17 December 2012 (EST)

I also think we should start and anti-spam squad here to help combat the spam by collecting the IP's and the like and adding those to such sites as Stopforumspam. I also think that copying the spam IP block list from wikipedia is a good Idea as I imagine they would have to have pretty good countermeasures against spam over there. Dvergne 00:02, 18 December 2012 (EST)

Thanks

Thank you for your thoughtfulness. My only concern is accuracy and credibility. I think that sometimes, people can't see how a stranger will react to their writing because we all have internal writing voices which remember all of our intentions rather than what is on the page. Wschact 01:34, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Thank you for your tireless work against vandals. Your efforts are appreciated. :-) Regards, Taj 17:27, 13 January 2013 (EST)

Spambots

It seems the spambots are active again. I might start to port over the new spambot IP blocks from Wikipedia again, as that seamed to be quite efficient at stopping them for a while last time. Dvergne 06:29, 3 February 2013 (EST)

I think I might upgrade that to very active! Have you been getting much spam at your honeypot mate? Dvergne 19:27, 3 February 2013 (EST)

It's been ok-ish. I blocked most of the ranges that were targeting my honeypot. brenden 19:50, 3 February 2013 (EST)

I removed your latest round of "personal attacks removed" censorship

I think it is poor form to edit talk page comments left by others. If an editor wishes to run afoul of the rules by speaking their mind, it should be their freedom to do so. If that editor happens to be immune to the rules (as with the user in this case), then I think their unfettered comments should stand as testimony to their true nature. Thanks --DonnyC 21:16, 7 February 2013 (EST)

Well, the last time that specific user left his comments, a lot of people were offended. While I agree, that generally, it is inappropriate to censor users, in certain cases, especially when personal attacks are involved, it should be fine. Furthermore, the use of such tags, causes the poster understand that such attacks are not welcome on Conservapedia.

Block

CameronD

Sorry I had been playing around with my signature I have now corrected it. CameronD 13:45, 12 April 2013 (EDT)

Unleash the Kraken Bot!

If you really do have the ability to implement some technical means to protect this wiki from a certain user's flagrant deletion sprees, I implore you to do so. Asking him to stop won't do a thing. He literally is incapable of changing his ways. --DonnyC 22:57, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

Well I do hope that asking him to change will help him overcome his irritating habit of deleting pages, I am prepared to create a bot. Unfortunately, I have no experience with the MW api, sooo, I see a lot of googling, and asking for technical help in my foreseeable future. brenden 13:42, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

User:C Reply

I have no intention of leaving, but between C's actions and Aschlafly choosing to ignore the problem(as well as any message I write to him now), it's hard to stay motivated to keep trying to make the site better. I'll stick around for now and continue to fight for this site, but I have this sinking feeling that it is only a matter of time before I'm perma-banned. Thanks for the support though, hopefully those of us who actually care will be able to prevail in the end. Fnarrow 14:24, 25 April 2013 (EDT)

On a related note... am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in C's repeated use of the 90/10 rule as a reason for banning (including the block of FWilliamM a mere 40 minutes after your unbanning him) when 38% of his own last 500 edits were to talk pages? Fnarrow 00:28, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

I do try to unblock the users unfairly blocked by that admin. brenden 01:17, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

I know you do and my earlier comment wasn't aimed at you. I was just frustrated with his antics last night and needed to express that to someone. Thank you for doing what you can. Fnarrow 08:32, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

That is enough from both of you. Brendan, you have no business or authority unblocking users because of a pet peeve against Conservative, especially when I look into the matter and discover they are proven trolls previously blocked for hostility. User Fnarrow, your whining about being bullied is now over and done with. You chose to come into the site, and you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise. This site is an encyclopedia; it is not a site where anyone can cause a fight with anyone else. Karajou 13:51, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

Karajou, I've always respected you, and found you to be a fair, and rational person, despite whatever ideological differences we may have. On the other hand, I must protest that contrary to what you said about FNarrow, "you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise." is actually an incorrect take on what happened. FNarrow was according to his contributions, merely being a productive editor, when s/he was provoked by User:C's ad-hominem attacks, and blatant violation of the Commandments. As per my authority to undo blocks placed by a superior, I feel, (and I'm pretty sure that Mr. Schlafly agrees with me), that blocks placed to censor users, and to subvert the policies here, are worthy of an immediate unblock. brenden 14:44, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

This edit [1] says a lot in support of my argument; this individual also created three additional accounts via a Philippine proxy in order to cause an attack on user Conservative...and you unblocked two of those socks. What you and FNarrow need to do is not only read the Conservapedia Commandments, but read and heed the warnings at the bottom of my user page. Everyone coming in is going to respect this website and the people in it, or they are out. Karajou 01:04, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Respect,K.? Ha!! Whose wife was implied to be a slut, K; and by whom, and who stood by and let that worm, Cons, get away with it? Who said one thing on Gmail and something else in public when he realised he had to show solidarity with a certain Mexican "gentleman" who backed a coward who has not bothered to do what he said he would do. I am still here, K. Where did Markman go when he realised he had given himself some work to do?

Just one question - why, if lack of citations is such a crime, wasn't I pulled up in 2007? AlanE 02:55, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Sorry Brenden for smeering your page with my anger. One takes the opportunity when it arises. AlanE 03:12, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

@User:Karajou

I don't have the checkuser ability, so I cannot tell if the people I block and unblock are socks. As per respecting the website, and the people (Especially user:C), I do try to respect the person, even if I cannot respect their actions. brenden 13:37, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Fnarrow infinite block

I am a friend of Fnarrow and he asked me to post the copy of this email which he sent to cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com on the user talk pages ofa few people whom he said had always been fair to him.

I got banned for a day and then Karajou immediately changed it to infinite for no apparent reason immediately after it expired. I have cut the dead end pages by nearly half during my short time there and feel i have made substantive improvements to other articles during that time. While i have had disagreements with Karajou and Conservative, i have always been respectful and adhered to the Conservapedia commandments. Finally, I never had a chance to respond to my accuser and did nothing to deserve this treatment. Please forward this to Mr. Schlafly for review.
Thank you, Fnarrow

If my opinion counts for anything, Frank really is a great and passionate guy who could add a lot of valuable knowledge to yosite. That is all, please keep up the great work. JSandler 14:35, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

If you hide another civil discussion I am having with another editor again, I will ask that you be removed from the website

If you hide another civil discussion that I am having with another editor again, I will ask that you be removed from the website. Thank you. I am sure Karajou and others would agree with me on this matter if I bring up this matter with other Admins. Conservative 16:12, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

How dare you? You insulted Patmac, and a vast host of other anglicans, you dragged me into this fight, and if you don't tone down your insults, I will bring it up with Mr. Schlafly, who certainly agrees that your words are unnacceptable. brenden 16:14, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

I don't consider my post to you daring. And I do mean to carry out what I said I would do should you do it again. Conservative 16:15, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

That discussion was civil? Calling user:Patmac a untrue christian, who is also a "lying evolutionist"? Really? I have brought this matter with the site's owner already. brenden 16:19, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Stating untruths about the conversation is not going to further your cause. In fact, you are making things worse. For example, I expressly did not answer Pacmac's question on whether or not he was a Christian which is why he repeated this question. You are digging for yourself a deeper hole. I would suggest you stop digging. Conservative 16:28, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Since when is it your right to be implying that any user is not a "True Christian"? And furthermore, can you justify User:Conservative/Patmac dodged this issue?brenden 16:32, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Brenden, you shouldn't have pushed it so far. All C probably meant was that "no true Christian" would advocate this or that. You'd have to be an idiot to take that personally (in fact, you'd have to be an imbecile not to realize that 'be an idiot' was just a figure of speech).

It may seem unfair that sometimes admins get greater leeway when it comes to personal remarks, but getting into a pissing contest over it will never be productive. If you're really worried about fairness, I suggest you consider all the people in totalitarian dictatorships who have NO ACCESS to the Internet and no way to express themselves without a swift ride to prison. Getting blocked on a pro-freedom site for personal remarks hardly compares.

It is nothing to do with like or dislike

It is nothing to do with like or dislike. It is for your own good. This is a fight you will NOT win. Rob Smith tried this and he now edits at ratwiki, he is an ex-person here. Keep this up and you will be as well. Davidspencer 16:23, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Thank you, David. I'm sorry for my choice of words now, but I must say, what User:Conservative did was not acceptable, and I tried to do my best to halt it before it returned to another user:C vs other sysops wheel war like last week. brenden 16:27, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Thanks Brenden

I do appreciate it, but don't want to cause disruption--Patmac 16:41, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Re:Ryancsh

I don't see why user page edits should not be understood as talk page edits for purposes of enforcing the 90/10 rule. I'm thinking of indefinitely banning Ryancsh for being a parodist anyway. Look up "Ryan Cash" on google, it seems to be some kind of an internet joke. - Markman 11:25, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

I searched up Ryan Cash, and saw that the second result points to a certain "Sonichu.com". However, I don't see how a website dedicated to provoking the creator of "sonichu" has any connection with Conservapedia or editing at Conservapedia. brenden 13:41, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

Re:Rafael

Considering his past record (see relevant block log) I think that if anything his block was not long enough. Increased length of block to one week. If this was his first offense then maybe it could have ended with a warning. - Markman 14:10, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

Given the fact that you have been chastised for being overly block-happy, I would strongly suggest not touching Rafael again, until Mr. Schlafly condones it. brenden 15:39, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

Schmoozing with the enemy

Good day,

I couldn't help but notice that you are not only frequenting a website dedicated solely for the purpose of attacking Conservapedia (everybody knows which website I'm talking about), but that you are also talking with the other liberals there about me. Care to elaborate? - Markman 15:05, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

If you see my goals I stated on my talkpage at that website, you will have your questions answered. As for speaking about you, I don't make assumptions on your motivations, but I have seen your blocking record, and I am frankly less than convinced on your sincerity. brenden 15:32, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

Swordsman

Look up "Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?‎" You'll find Swordsman as there in the discussion about the Catholic Church and evolution. - Markman 16:45, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Mark Kirk

The idea that the stroke damaged his judgement does not sound unreasonable to me. I think that the main problem with the edit you reverted is that it treats this idea as a fact rather than a likely yet unproven possibility. I changed the wording accordingly. - Markman 04:04, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

The likelyhood of a stroke changing a person's political views are not supported by any reliable neuroscience research. I'm removing it as it seems to be at the best, an unproven claim. brenden 13:27, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

I'll tell you what

Why don't you ask Andy if he thinks it's impossible that damage to the brain can make someone liberal. If he says it's impossible, I'll remove that part of Kirk's article myself. AngusT 20:28, 17 June 2013 (EDT)